Download a PDF of this page here.

Green - Mead__600.jpg


Capacity development: Research rooted in community partner voice
Patrick Green, Director of Experiential Learning & Clinical Instructor of Experiential Learning, Loyola University Chicago [pgreen@luc.edu]

Travis Proffitt, Community Partnerships Coordinator, Loyola University Chicago [tproffi@luc.edu]

Keywords: Capacity development, reciprocity, community partner voice

Conference track: Community partnerships and outcomes

Format: Research/Scholarly paper

Summary
Community organizations partnering with higher education institutions depend upon structured pathways to express both their needs and assets. A study of the impact of community partnerships communicates how organizational capacity was enhanced through the work of students in a variety of community-based learning curricular programs.

The literature on community partnerships in community-engaged learning in higher education has consistently focused on reciprocity (Jacoby, 1996; Jacoby, 2003; Schiebel, Bowley, & Jones, 2005). The question of actual “reciprocity” and the mutual benefits for community partners has been called into question as well (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009). How does the voice of the community partner organization become structurally embedded into the partnership to identify the organization’s own capacity development? This research addresses the structural implementation of community voice in community partnership development through a center for experiential learning and multiple community-engaged learning programs.

Through a survey, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews, data was collected on the organizational capacity developed through community-engaged programs as well as strategies to further address community needs through partnership with higher education institutions. Data was analyzed through categorization to identify themes of community partner organization capacity development and growth strategies.

The analysis of data demonstrated significant themes of capacity development, including:
  • Increased number of beneficiaries served
  • Improved service utilization by beneficiaries
  • Developed new and expanded preexisting programs and services
  • Gained collaborative partnerships with other community organizations
  • Diminished cost to community

Strategies for further addressing reciprocity through the development of organizational priorities included:
  • Increase community-based research projects
  • Connect with more research faculty
  • Develop multiple points of connection with the college or university

This study contributes to the practice and development of structures to support reciprocity in community relationships with higher education programs. These results translate into practical implications for structuring educational programs that facilitate community partnerships.

References
Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-Learning in Today's Higher Education. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jacoby, B. (2003). Fundamentals of service-learning partnerships. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Building partnerships for service-learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Scheibel, J., Bowley, E. M., & Jones, S. (2005). The promise of partnerships: Tapping into the college as a community asset. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.

Stoecker, R., & Tryon, E. A. (Eds). (2009). The unheard voices: Community organizations and service learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

To access materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below:




Subject Author Replies Views Last Message
No Comments